Jump to content

Caulkins v Prizker Recusal Thread

mauserme

By mauserme,
in Judicial Second Amendment Case Discussion

 Share

Recommended Posts

mauserme Member

mauserme

Posted
Posted (edited)

https://www.tspr.org/illinois-public-radio/2023-01-23/rep-caulkins-plans-lawsuit-against-the-assault-weapons-ban-after-limited-court-order

 

Rep. Caulkins plans lawsuit against the assault weapons ban after limited court order

WGLT | By Eric Stock
Published January 23, 2023 at 3:32 PM CST

 

Days after a judge ruled against Illinois' new assault weapons ban, a central Illinois lawmaker plans to file another lawsuit to keep the ban from becoming law.

...

Republican state Rep. Dan Caulkins of Decatur said he has heard from gun owners and firearms dealers who also want to go to court.

...

 

Caulkins, who represents rural parts of central Illinois between Bloomington-Normal, Decatur and Champaign-Urbana in the 88th Illinois House district, said he's collecting names and plans to file suit in Macon County court on Thursday.

 

Caulkins said attorney Tom DeVore who filed the suit in Effingham County will not be part of the litigation, but he said the court filing will “closely mirror” the arguments DeVore made when the judge ruled in his favor. ...

 

Caulkins said he expects many more lawsuits against the new gun law will follow.

 

“I know that there’s a lot of FOID cardholders who would like to have those same protections. I would suspect that we’ll see lawsuits popup all over Illinois in the near future,” Caulkins said. “Hopefully this will take a life of its own here.”

...

 

 

Ongoing discussion about this case can be found in the Caulkins v Pritzker Case Discussion thread that was split from this topic.

 

 

 

Edited by mauserme
Updated topic title and merged two topics/Split into 2 topics.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • mauserme changed the title to Rep. Caulkins Plans Lawsuit Against the "Assault Weapons Ban" (Caulkins v Prizker)
jcable2 Member

jcable2

Posted
Posted

Seems like Devore is trying to sabotage this lawsuit. I like Devore but seems like he got angry that he was losing out on potential $200 per person fee. After this third lawsuit he is filling this week will have taken in over a million dollars in fees at $200 per person. Dan was charging no one and it was clear any money was donations not attorney fees. Most people didn't even give Dan any money. Devore filled an appearance today in this lawsuit and the it seems like he is trying to get the association thrown out of the case. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jcable2 Member

jcable2

Posted
Posted
On 1/30/2023 at 4:05 PM, Frozencpu said:

I think Devore is starting to get greedy, he is not even arguing the 2A part of this law just the actual legislation process on how it became law to slap some TRO's that probably wont even last till mid of February. 

There's absolutely zero reason for him to file multiple identical lawsuits in separate counties. The only reason is to get more $200 per person fees. He's making an outrageous amount of money on this law. He should focus on the first lawsuit Effingham instead of filing yet a third one. If everything goes good at the next meeting and Effingham Court, the other two lawsuits will be moot. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RANDY Member

RANDY

Posted
Posted
On 1/30/2023 at 4:05 PM, Frozencpu said:

I think Devore is starting to get greedy, he is not even arguing the 2A part of this law just the actual legislation process on how it became law to slap some TRO's that probably wont even last till mid of February. 

If he argues 2A grounds it give the state the chance to move the case to federal court since it would implement a constitutional right/

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jcable2 Member

jcable2

Posted
Posted

Looks like the Macon County court was not happy with Devore. 

 

Clerk presents file this date, the Court finds that Attorney Devore sent a Notice of Hearing on his Application to Intervene without

first scheduling the matter for hearing with the Court and in violation of Circuit Court Rule 2.1(f) which requires 14 days notice. The Court has not had an opportunity to review the Application and issues in detail as the focus of the Court has been on the issues presented in Plaintiff's Motion which was properly set for a

quick hearing date due to the emergency nature of the motion, upon request of counsel. Accordingly, the Court will not hear the Petition to Intervene on February 3rd, 2023. Parties are directed to contact Judge Forbes' Judicial Clerk to obtain a date and time for hearing on that application. CLERK DIRECTED TO SEND COPY OF THIS DOCKET ENTRY TO COUNSEL OF RECORD.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jcable2 Member

jcable2

Posted
Posted
On 2/4/2023 at 7:01 AM, Tip said:

No wonder Devore’s so p***** - if the Judge grants the “our request that a new TRO be applied to every FOID card holder” part of this succeeds then his cash cow dies….

Yes after Dan posted this last night Tom made his own post saying that you cannot ask for TRO to cover the entire State. He is not happy. Unlike his case though where he was seeking the emergency temporary TRO, Dan's case motioned for a Declaratory Judgment. Tom is sounding just like Kinkaid. Kinkaid straight up told the jude he doesn't have the power to apply it to all Foid card holders or even the association. The state lawyers really seem to love telling Judges what they can and cannot do. They act like they are the Judges boss, and you know a judge doesn't not like being told by a lawyer they are not allowed to make their own decisions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Frozencpu Welcome New Member

Frozencpu

Posted
Posted
On 2/4/2023 at 7:01 AM, Tip said:

No wonder Devore’s so p***** - if the Judge grants the “our request that a new TRO be applied to every FOID card holder” part of this succeeds then his cash cow dies….

My thoughts exactly and I 2nd that. Why couldn't these organizations that took the time to file federal suits done this from the beginning. Aren't we suppose to get the TRO in place for the state while they go to further advance in courts for injunction? 

 

Or is Devore going to get an injunction for those 2000+ plaintiffs only? I just don't see any other arguments beside the equal protection rights that's been argued at all. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mauserme Member

mauserme

Posted
  • Author
Posted
On 2/7/2023 at 8:27 AM, AlphaKoncepts aka CGS said:

I did not see the case filed by Dan Caulkins listed here in the forums. The following is from his facebook page... 

 

Greetings to one and all. We filed our lawsuit on 1/26 in Macon County (Decatur). If you want to check it out, search for Docket 2023 CH3. We have a hearing scheduled before Judge Forbes at 1:30 on February 3rd.
There is some confusion about who is NAMED as individual plaintiffs and who is not. Some of you may have thought that this was going to follow all aspects of Tom DeVore's trailblazing suits, including the naming of a thousand (literally or figuratively) individual plaintiffs.
We opted to try to do something similar to Mr. DeVore's, and at the same time make it better. We opted to file without exposing the individuals supporting us to some of the potential risks of listing yourself as a named plaintiff. That's where our unincorporated association comes in, the Law-Abiding Gun Owners of Macon County.
Again, those who joined our effort were not specifically named for very good, legal reasons, but know that we will all benefit if we win a ruling to stop the enforcement of this law.
Obviously I've been pressed to explain why.
I decided that there are many of us that wanted to challenge Governor Pritzker’s law because we know it’s unconstitutional. A lot of us have donated to FFL IL and other organizations to fund a challenge in Federal Court. Knowing that effort could take months to be heard, we’ve decided to go to the State courts for hopefully a more immediate ruling.
My plan was/is to put together a group that wanted to ban together to support that litigation (a legal definition of an “Association”). By responding to my call to join in, the law considers that to be "voluntary consent for a common purpose" which is to get the law overturned. If we are successful, and get a judgement in our favor, it does not require any individual member of the Association to be named for you to get the benefit.
Why not list specific individual plaintiffs? Well, for one, the Illinois Attorney General's Office could schedule depositions with each and every named plaintiff. The folks over at the Illinois AG's office have the time and resources to do such a thing. Do you think Tom Devore's going to represent you and hundreds (thousands?) of others through a four to six-hour deposition with multiple Attorney General lawyers like the one John Boch sat through as part of Guns Save Life's FOID challenge lawsuit? They grilled Mr. Boch for hours, in large part to prove he had standing. Not only did they want a list of all his firearms, they wanted a list of all of his gun safes including serial numbers, instruction books and sales receipts! Are these individual named plaintiffs in Mr. DeVore's lawsuits ready for that level of exposure?
As if that wasn't enough, as I understand it, in any outcome of Mr. DeVore's suit, there's the potential that all of the named plaintiffs would have to sign off on the agreement. Unless of course he had everyone execute some sort of waiver of those rights as part of signing on to the suit when he collected their payment.
There's more, but you get the idea.
If any of you feel this legal strategy we've employed in this endeavor is not what you expected, and would like your donation returned, please send me an email. I will promptly send you a refund. If you're still on the fence about this, after having learned of the reasoning behind how we did things to protect the people behind our lawsuit, I'd urge you to wait a week (or three) to see how this develops.
Dan Caulkins
dan@dancaulkins.com

 

This was merged into the existing topic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jeffrey Member

Jeffrey

Posted
Posted (edited)

https://www.thecentersquare.com/illinois/white-county-issues-temporary-restraining-order-against-illinois-gun-ban/article_f0d4b1c8-a323-11ed-84c5-d7c82e257000.html

 

Just saw this come up.  

 

ETA:  duh.  I initially read that as Devore's third case but don't believe that's correct being that the article is dated Feb 2.

ETA(again):  Hoping this is related to his 3rd case:  https://www.thecentersquare.com/illinois/macon-county-judge-issues-third-temporary-restraining-order-against-illinois-gun-ban/article_cb3ae2bc-a7e1-11ed-9d4f-1beeb03f03dc.html#tncms-source=infinity-scroll-summary-sticky-siderail-latest

Edited by Jeffrey
Link to comment
Share on other sites
jcable2 Member

jcable2

Posted
Posted (edited)

I see Tom said in 3 different posts that they didn't even ask for it to apply State wide but on page 10 of the combined motion it does. Either he didn't read the combined motion or is outright lying. 

 

Memorandum-in-Support-of-Plaintiffs-Combined-Motion.pdf

Screenshot_20230208-235614~2.png

Edited by jcable2
Screenshot was reversed
Link to comment
Share on other sites
jcable2 Member

jcable2

Posted
Posted
On 2/9/2023 at 10:26 AM, Jeffrey said:

Sorry, I was under the impression this is part of Devore's case #3.  

This is Dan Caulkins case that Devore has been bashing and hating on. Hopefully you made Devores because 3. Heard it has over 2,500 pages of names. Going to be interesting to see how many names that is total. That is a a windfall of money Devore just received. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mauserme Member

mauserme

Posted
  • Author
Posted
On 2/9/2023 at 1:19 PM, jcable2 said:

This is Dan Caulkins case that Devore has been bashing and hating on. Hopefully you made Devores because 3. Heard it has over 2,500 pages of names. Going to be interesting to see how many names that is total. That is a a windfall of money Devore just received. 

 

Since we're in the Judicial Forum we like to keep discussion centered around the case at hand -  its progress , the impact on our rights, etc.

 

While I appreciate that you don't think Mr. Devore should be making money at his profession, continually expressing that in a thread dedicate to the Caulkins' suit is hardly appropriate.  If you have additional thoughts about the cost of being included in any of the suits, a new Back Room topic might be the best place to express those thoughts.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jeffrey Member

Jeffrey

Posted
Posted
On 2/9/2023 at 1:19 PM, jcable2 said:

This is Dan Caulkins case that Devore has been bashing and hating on. Hopefully you made Devores because 3. Heard it has over 2,500 pages of names. Going to be interesting to see how many names that is total. That is a a windfall of money Devore just received. 

I did find the correct list and I'm on it!

 

I'm happy for TD for making a little money on this.  I don't know how much of his time 24/7 is actually going into this.  I do know if I were to hire someone myself it would have been a heck of a lot more than $200 and who knows what results would have been.  I'm telling myself it's kinda like insurance temporarily.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • mauserme changed the title to Caulkins v Prizker Recusal Thread
  • Molly B. pinned this topic
  • mauserme unpinned this topic

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...